Why no far-right candidates?

dyl10

Nolanger wrote: »

Anyone have a reasonable explanation why not even one person going for election had far-right views? Surely some people would have voted for these candidates?

Because real far-right politics don't actually exist, probably....

pragmatic1

Sand wrote: »

Sinn Fein tend to suck up the usual nationalist/socialist votes that "right wing" parties in other countries receive. It doesnt leave a lot of space for a genuine racist/xenophobic party to emerge, which I suppose is the one saving grace of Sinn Fein.

Our lefties have guns.

KIERAN1

irishh_bob wrote: »

in the eyes of the far left in ireland , islamists in pallestine , iraq or afghanistan are kindred spirits :rolleyes:

The Left= Care about everyone!!!

The Right= Care about themselves mainly, but if they can help along the way that is something that helps their ego!! Good honest church going Catholics Jesus will be proud of them:rolleyes:

irishh_bob

KIERAN1 wrote: »

The Left= Care about everyone!!!

The Right= Care about themselves mainly, but if they can help along the way that is something that helps their ego!! Good honest church going Catholics Jesus will be proud of them:rolleyes:

keep feeding on those stereotypes

Dionysus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So, you can't be a rightwinger unless you quote Hayek (1899 -1992) on the floor of the Dáil? Did rightwingers not exist before he came on the scene? Thatcher, for instance, was inspired by rightwinger thinker which predate Hayek by some time, such as Adam Smith (1723 -1790).

I expect your comment about Thatcher is some juvenile attempt at trolling.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where, in your opinion, has this perfectly rightwing society existed other than in Thatcher's Britain?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, you didn't need to be a genius to see that 1) we were in a bubble, and 2) that the bubble was going to burst. The IMF, like every other economic organisation, issued so many reports that they were of course going to, like a stopped clock, be correct at some stage. Here are some of the many IMF reports praising the rightwing policy of Charlie McCreevy in the same 1998. That they did nothing to curtail the Irish economy puts their warnings in context. At any rate, as if to demonstrate that criticisms of the economy were not the preserve of the IMF in 1998, Tom Prenderville produced a very fine explanation of what the banks were doing in the same year.

Dionysus

irishh_bob wrote: »

idiotic post

Given your posts to date, I can only take that as a compliment.

KIERAN1

irishh_bob wrote: »

keep feeding on those stereotypes

I don't feed of it/ truth will always be found out in the end... As example/ a right wing government has crippled our nation, yet we elect another one just amazing is it not?

dsmythy

KIERAN1 wrote: »

I don't feed of it/ truth will always be found out in the end... As example/ a right wing government has crippled our nation, yet we elect another one just amazing is it not?

Fianna Fáil are a left-wing and right-wing party depending on how they feel on the day.

KIERAN1

dsmythy wrote: »

Fianna Fáil are a left-wing and right-wing party depending on how they feel on the day.

Actually FF have always adopted right wing positions on economic matters. Lot more involved in left wing policies then FF giving a few nice sweets to lower income families during the Celtic Tiger era..

.0

sarumite wrote: »

A libertarian takes a capitalist approach to business....so yes, thats true. Though a libertarianism is political position, capitalism is not.

Err, okay. I'm not going to get into a war of semantics here. Just be aware that you're using the words 'capitalist' and 'capitalism' in very unusual ways.

Does 'capitalism' refer to an ideology (way of thinking, set of values, etc) or to a mode of production?

The word historically has generally referred to a mode of production, as it was popularised by marxists and other opponents of, well... 'capitalism'. So in that sense, the societies in which capitalism is the dominant mode of production are capitalist societies. In those societies, 'capitalists' are the people whose money circulates as 'capital' through processes of commodity production.

I'm aware, on the other hand, that some people refer to themselves as 'capitalists' in the sense of 'I am an advocate of capitalism'. These 'capitalists' might not own any capital at all, they could be wage-labourers. In that sense it's a term counterposed to 'communist', 'socialist', 'anarchist', etc, though probably more restricted to armchair philosophising than those (which often entail activism). And the question still remains, what is 'capitalism' in this case? What is it these 'capitalists' advocate? If it's the utopian 'free market' of the libertarian imagination then we're left with the question of what we're supposed to call the society we've been living in for the past few centuries, because they've just nicked our word for it.

Sand

Dionysus wrote: »

Here are some of the many IMF reports praising the rightwing policy of Charlie McCreevy in the same 1998. That they did nothing to curtail the Irish economy puts their warnings in context.

What power did the IMF have to do anything to curtail the Irish economy in 1998? There interventions in any country are by invitation, in co-operation with the government. They cant just arrive in at the head of a column of tanks to impose their will.

Hasschu

A prerequisite for a far right movement is a sizeable minority with a heightened sense of grievance and an identifiable enemy. Hitler in Germany attached himself to and used such a group to gain power, Jean Marie Le Pen of France was less successful in his campaign against the "Arabs". There was a rabid anti foreigner in Manchester for years whose name escapes me, he was re-elected again and again on the single issue. Ireland is a small country where people tend to know each other, there is little chance to be anonymous and the people you rail against know you and see you weekly at least. Then there is social control and consensus which still operates in Ireland. A common irish weapon is not talking to people (shunning) which I have seen being taken to ridiculous extremes like a daughter not talking to her mother for 30 years. If there was a right wing movement it would encompass the majority of the people as long as there was a suitable enemy within the country. Ireland does not provide fertile ground for right wing movements. A little bit of the shirt colour business went on in the twenties and thirties but it never amounted to much. It was seen as a bunch of eejits prancing around trying to emulate Germans, Italians and Spaniards, very unIrish.

steelcityblues

Dare I say, FF will carve out a 'niche' here, for want of better term - because they need to do something to save the 'brand'.

sarumite

.0 wrote: »

Does 'capitalism' refer to an ideology (way of thinking, set of values, etc) or to a mode of production?

what is 'capitalism' in this case? What is it these 'capitalists' advocate?

I feel comfortable with wikipedia's approach to the term

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

If it's the utopian 'free market' of the libertarian imagination then we're left with the question of what we're supposed to call the society we've been living in for the past few centuries, because they've just nicked our word for it.

While I don't agree with libertarianism, I don't believe that they think it would be "utopian"....merely preferable (akin to those who advocate Democracy as a from of government acknowledge that it is not 'utopian' but recognise that it is preferable.)

As to what we have today, I would suggest its a heavily regulated form of capitalism. Its not true capitalism, but has many of the facets that one would recognise within a capitalism.

That said its quite probable that there is more than one form of capitalism....free market, regulated etc and that we were both trying to paint the various shades of grey with a single monochrome black.

The Brigadier

joulter wrote: »

the bnp are the best-known example of far-right

Although many (myself included) feel that tag is inaccurate. The BNP are very much a leftist organisation when it comes to their economic policy.

marco_polo

The Brigadier wrote: »

Although many (myself included) feel that tag is inaccurate. The BNP are very much a leftist organisation when it comes to their economic policy.

The term 'Far right' is never used in an economic context though.

The Brigadier

marco_polo wrote: »

The term 'Far right' is never used in an economic context though.

The origin of the term is from the French Revolution when the royalists sat to the right. Wiki has this to say on right wing economics

Economics
Historically, the Right has advocated preserving the wealth and power of aristocrats and nobles. Reactionary right-wing politics involves the creation or promotion of a social hierarchy.[41] Right-wing politics views social and economic hierarchies as either natural or normal and rejects attempts to remove such hierarchies. For example, right-wing politicians in France during the French Revolution opposed the removal of the monarchy and aristocratic privilege.[6] Traditional rightists were uncomfortable with liberal capitalism. Particularly in continental Europe, many conservatives have been uncomfortable with the impact of capitalism upon culture and traditions. The conservative opposition to the French Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the development of individualistic liberalism as a political theory and as institutionalized social practices sought to retain traditional social hierarchies, practices and institutions. There has also been a conservative protectionist opposition to certain types of international capitalism. There are still right-wing movements, notably American paleoconservatives, that are often in opposition to capitalist ethics and the effects they have on society as a whole, which they see as infringing upon or decaying social traditions or hierarchies that are essential for social order. Conservative authoritarians and those on the far right have supported corporatism.[42]
In modern times, most right-wing ideologies and movements support capitalism. In Europe, capitalists formed alliances with the Right during their conflict with workers after 1848. In France, the right's support of capitialism can be traced to the late 19th century.[9] Right-wing libertarianism (sometimes known as libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism) supports a decentralized economy based on economic freedom, and advocates policies such as property rights, free markets and free trade. Russell Kirk believed that freedom and property rights were interlinked.[43] Anthony Gregory has written that right-wing, or conservative libertarianism, "can refer to any number of varying and at times mutually exclusive political orientations." He listed some as: being "interested mainly in 'economic freedoms'"; following the "conservative lifestyle of right-libertarians"; seeking "others to embrace their own conservative lifestyle"; considering big business "as a great victim of the state"; favoring a "strong national defense"; having "an Old Right opposition to empire." He holds that the issue is not right or left but "whether a person sees the state as a major hazard or just another institution to be reformed and directed toward a political goal."[44]
The Right often advocates equality of opportunities as an alternative to equality of outcome. Russell Kirk, a major figure of American conservatism included "civilized society requires orders and classes" as one of the "canons" of conservatism.[43] Western-style corporate capitalism but not full-fledged laissez-faire economics or individual autonomy was adopted by reformist governments in Singapore and Taiwan during a period of authoritarian rule and economic reform. These countries continue to venerate tradition in what has been described an "Asian model" of capitalism.

belacqua_

The Brigadier wrote: »

Although many (myself included) feel that tag is inaccurate. The BNP are very much a leftist organisation when it comes to their economic policy.

The BNP are a leftist organisation?? What kind of expression are you wearing?

They are not a leftist organisation when it comes to anything, they are a hideous, far-right, neo-fascist, nationalist party and any attempt to portray them as otherwise is disingenuous.

Their economic policies are in line with other far-right, neo-fascist, nationalist parties, all of whom have taken their inspiration from the economic policies of previous, failed, fascist regimes (Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany and so on).

The Brigadier

belacqua_ wrote: »

The BNP are a leftist organisation?? What kind of expression are you wearing?

They are not a leftist organisation when it comes to anything, they are a hideous, far-right, neo-fascist, nationalist party and any attempt to portray them as otherwise is disingenuous.

Their economic policies are in line with other far-right, neo-fascist, nationalist parties, all of whom have taken their inspiration from the economic policies of previous, failed, fascist regimes (Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany and so on).

Well from their website :

Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers.

In a nutshell, the BNP plan to rebuild Britain will consist of the following steps:

- The nurturing and encouragement of new and existing British industries;
- The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports;
- The promotion of domestic competition;
- Increased taxes on companies which outsource work abroad;
- The reintroduction of the married man’s allowance;
- The raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million;
- The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing;
- Halving council tax by centralising education costs and eliminating multiculturalism spending and unnecessary bureaucracy;
- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.

They certainly have a lot of leftist economic policies. I am not the only one to hold this view. I did a very quick google and came up with the following :

The consistent miss-labelling of extremist parties is very damaging to liberal democracy, as it creates false tensions and misaligns people with causes they do not understand fully. I’ve yet to meet a Tory who believes in clamping down on free-trade and the nationalisation of private companies. The BNP are both racist and fascist: all fascist parties have left wing tendencies as they predominantly believe in nationalisation, collectivism and forbid free expression, which makes fascism the very antipathy of right-of-centre politics

http://www.conservativefuture.com/2009/02/01/fight-left-wing-bnp/

To read the press, you’d think Adolf Hitler had just won a parliamentary majority in Britain. Every newspaper found room close to or on its front page for the story of the BNP taking a council seat in Swanley (which lies just inside my Euro-region). The Independent, indeed, left space for little else: its cover was given over to one of those panicky headlines it so enjoys, and the BNP “threat” was elaborated on several other pages and provoked an agonised editorial.
What precisely had happened? BNP boneheads had taken one of the 21,000-odd council seats in the UK. There is some dispute about how many of these the party controls in total: the BNP claims 110; anti-BNP groups claim 60; I shouldn’t be surprised if both are exaggerating, and the real figure is lower still. In any event, we are talking about less than 0.2 per cent of all council seats. Has a party ever received more disproportionate coverage than this? Would the BNP win anywhere if it didn’t receive so much media attention?
Why do the pundits do it? Partly, to show what nice people they are (”I hate those evil fascists even more than he does!”) Partly because some commentators wish that they had had the chance to be part of a struggle against Nazism and, not finding much by way of a genuine fascist menace, build up the paltry BNP as the next best thing. Partly, too, because the BNP is a handy card for quangocrats and their supporters to play against localism (“you couldn’t possibly have elected police chiefs; what if the BNP won?”)
Above all, though, the BNP is used as an indirect weapon against the mainstream Right. You will have noticed that the party is almost never mentioned without the soubriquet “far Right”. The BNP doesn’t call itself Right-wing, of course. It favours nationalisation, higher taxes, protectionism and (though it keeps quiet about this) republicanism. It markets itself as “the Labour Party your parents voted for”. Its manifesto calls for “the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports,” and promises to “restore our economy and land to British ownership” and “to give workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes”.
As Hayek wrote in 1944 in his brilliant chapter on “the socialist roots of Nazism”, the dispute between fascists and socialists is a dispute between brothers. Labour and the BNP are, in a sense, competing for the same sort of voter: one who believes in the power of the state. The one kind of voter whom both fascists and socialists regard as beyond persuasion is the small-government Tory.
The real purpose of banging on about the “far-Right BNP” is to damage, by association, the Conservatives. If hurting the Tories means giving the BNP enough free publicity to keep it alive, it’s a price some Lefties seem happy to pay.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/8679468/Theres_nothing_Rightwing_about_the_BNP/

I can understand why those on the left don't wish to be branded in the same political mindset as the BNP. Now they know how those of us on the right feel. But the fact remains that BNP beliefs DO have more in common with Socialism than with Conservatism - centralised command control, trade tariffs, state owned businesses ... I could go on. I struggle to think of a single issue which joins the BNP and mainstream conservatism. The Nazis were called National Socialists for a reason. Fascism is invariably described as a creed of the right. It isn't. As with the BNP, fascism has far more in common with the left, at least in political theoretical terms.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-bnp-is-left-wing-and-fascist.html

Those were just from quick Google.

belacqua_

Thanks for googling. While they may have more in common with socialism than conservatism (the Telegraph, a conservative newspaper is hardly going to say otherwise), but as I've already said, they have even more in common with previous far-right fascist parties and regimes. They are a far-right, anti-communist party.

The Brigadier

belacqua_ wrote: »

Thanks for googling. While they may have more in common with socialism than conservatism (the Telegraph, a conservative newspaper is hardly going to say otherwise), but as I've already said, they have even more in common with previous far-right fascist parties and regimes. They are a far-right, anti-communist party.

The point I am making is that they may have right wing social policies but they have left wing economics policies. I haven't disputed that they have much in common with previous far right parties but they all had a fundamental socialist economic viewpoint.

The wiki definition of socialism is

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

This fits quite neatly with the BNP, the National Socialists in Germany, the Italian Fascists etc etc etc

I was simply seeking to disprove you statement that

belacqua_ wrote: »

They are not a leftist organisation when it comes to anything

Which I think I have done.

The Brigadier

If you look at the support for 'far-right' parties as well it typically comes from the working classes. Typically disenfranchised voters who would have normally voted at the left of the traditional political spectrum.

belacqua_

The Brigadier wrote: »

Which I think I have done.

By selectively quoting other right wing parties, commentators and news outlets seeking to distance themselves from the BNP? I'm afraid I disagree.

The Brigadier

belacqua_ wrote: »

By selectively quoting other right wing parties, commentators and news outlets seeking to distance themselves from the BNP? I'm afraid I disagree.

I don't believe I quoted any right wing parties(other than the BNP directly), commentators or news outlets.


I have taken some time to back up my view, can you at least do more than saying "I disagree"

belacqua_

The Brigadier wrote: »

I don't believe I quoted any right wing parties(other than the BNP directly), commentators or news outlets.

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you: the British Conservative Party, Iain Dale and the Daily Telegraph. Of course they're going to want to distance themselves from the BNP.

belacqua_

The Brigadier wrote: »

If you look at the support for 'far-right' parties as well it typically comes from the working classes. Typically disenfranchised voters who would have normally voted at the left of the traditional political spectrum.

To left of Enoch Powell? Give me a break.

The Brigadier

belacqua_ wrote: »

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you: the British Conservative Party, Iain Dale and the Daily Telegraph. Of course they're going to want to distance themselves from the BNP.

They are all centre-right as opposed to right wing.

belacqua_

The Brigadier wrote: »

They are all centre-right as opposed to right wing.

Jesus titty-frigging Christ.

The Brigadier

belacqua_ wrote: »

To left of Enoch Powell? Give me a break.

Which shows you the error you are making in trying to pigeonhole things.

marco_polo

The Brigadier wrote: »

The origin of the term is from the French Revolution when the royalists sat to the right. Wiki has this to say on right wing economics

I was specifically referring to the term 'Far right', rather than the general meaning of right and left.

When that term is used it is crystal clear that it is not describing the economic position of a party, but rather its xenophobic, anti-immigration leanings.

irishh_bob

KIERAN1 wrote: »

Actually FF have always adopted right wing positions on economic matters. Lot more involved in left wing policies then FF giving a few nice sweets to lower income families during the Celtic Tiger era..

fianna fail were only right wing for two periods in thier history , 1987 - 1989 and 1997 - 2004 , every other FF administration was big on public spending and opposed to deregulation of state monopolys

dev while socially conservative was incredibly protectionist

bnt

I understand the history of economic conservatism as pasted on a previous page, and how it affects attitudes towards the conservation of wealth and privilege. These days, there's another "left / right" divide in Macroeconomics, the ongoing debate between the work of Keynes et al (the "left") and the Austrian School of Von Mises, Hayek et al (the "right"). These aren't the only options, of course, but they are where lines are most often drawn these days. These are Macroeconomic theories in the sense that they have fully thought-out positions on the ways economies operate, and the roles that governments should play - and the current financial crisis has led to renewed interest in both.

In the USA you have the likes of Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times and winning a Nobel Prize in 2008 - just as the crisis hit - and he calls himself a Keynesian: his criticism of Obama's economic stimulus packages boils down to "too little, too late". One problem I have with this analysis is that it only fits within a bigger picture of countercyclical policy, which only makes sense when it's applied during the boom years too.

In plain English: a government should "make hay while the sun shines", so that they can boost the economy in the downturns, but the reality is that the hay wasn't made, not in the USA nor in most Western countries, especially Ireland. (The exceptions are the likes of Germany and Canada). So, to stimulate the economy, governments have to spend when they can least afford it, when they are subjected to reduced tax revenue, and higher interest rates on loans, which are a dead loss to their country. (Why do you think the major world banks - e.g. HSBC today - are enjoying record profits?)

The Austrian School would argue deficit spending simply should not happen, that governments should stay out of the economy, that failed banks should actually fail and never be bailed out. Market value is central in that theory: a thing is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and that principle applies at all levels of the economy. (Keynes, in comparison, theorised that an asset's value is more closely related to the cost of the labour that went in to producing it - but then what determines the cost of the labour?)

IANAE*, and I still have a lot to learn, starting with the Great Depression and how it relates to the current crisis. Both sides have very different takes on the causes of the Great Depression, the way it progressed, how the world got out of it, and how to stop it from happening again. The thing that makes me lean slightly towards the Austrian School is their clear focus on the question of Credit, the abuse of which was rampant in both the 1920s and the 2000s, and is directly implicated in both crises.

* I Am Not An Economist. I'm not studying it formally, but I am doing a good bit of reading on the topic.

hatrickpatrick

Pauleta wrote: »

Bailing out banks and a free money for all welfare system are very left wing policies

Allowing an industry to monopolize the economy with no regulation whatsoever is a very right wing policy.

.0

sarumite wrote: »

I feel comfortable with wikipedia's approach to the term

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Fair enough. "Economic system" is closer to mode of production than to a way of thinking.

From the same page: "The term capitalist refers to an owner of capital".

So nothing on that Wiki page goes very far to explaining what you meant by "a capitalist approach to business".

All business owners own capital, and are therefore capitalists.

The notion makes no more sense, surely, than saying "a car owner's approach to driving."

While I don't agree with libertarianism, I don't believe that they think it would be "utopian"....merely preferable (akin to those who advocate Democracy as a from of government acknowledge that it is not 'utopian' but recognise that it is preferable.)

I disagree. There's a clear utopian sentiment underlying the 'benign invisible hand of laissez-faire' arguments.

As to what we have today, I would suggest its a heavily regulated form of capitalism. Its not true capitalism, but has many of the facets that one would recognise within a capitalism.

That said its quite probable that there is more than one form of capitalism....free market, regulated etc and that we were both trying to paint the various shades of grey with a single monochrome black.

There are indeed various forms of capitalism, and it seems strangely backwards, and utopian, to suggest that the form that's never existed is the 'true' form. As capitalism ages it changes and adapts, it's very dynamic and resilient.

Anyway, the point I was initially making before we got into semantics was that there is a difference between, on the one hand, what libertarian ideologues would like capitalists and policians to do, and on the other, what capitalists and bourgeois politicians actually want for themselves. The class interests of capitalists don't correspond to the ideological interests of libertarians.

sarumite

.0 wrote: »

So nothing on that Wiki page goes very far to explaining what you meant by "a capitalist approach to business".

I never suggested it would since I was never explicitly asked to explain it.

Though if I had been asked then I would say that a libertarian approach to business (and by business, let me clarify and say macro economics) would support a system whereby the "means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

I disagree. There's a clear utopian sentiment underlying the 'benign invisible hand of laissez-faire' arguments.

Then we disagree.

There are indeed various forms of capitalism, and it seems strangely backwards, and utopian, to suggest that the form that's never existed is the 'true' form. As capitalism ages it changes and adapts, it's very dynamic and resilient.

Though I have already conceded there are various forms of capitalism, thus negating the existence of the one 'true' form. Perhaps I should have edited the earlier post to express that opinion better.

Anyway, the point I was initially making before we got into semantics was that there is a difference between, on the one hand, what libertarian ideologues would like capitalists and policians to do, and on the other, what capitalists and bourgeois politicians actually want for themselves. The class interests of capitalists don't correspond to the ideological interests of libertarians.

If we accept that there is more than one type of capitalism (I think we both agreed upon that), reading your statement I find myself subconsciously replacing "libertarian ideologue" with 'Free market capitalists' and "capitalists and bourgeois politicians" with 'regulated capitalists' (to use crude terms). But that would be going into semantics again. So let me just say that I believe a free market capitalist (who may be considered 'right wing') would allow market forces to determine the fate of the banks....which was the initial point I was trying to make.

Nolanger

RandomName2 wrote: »

OP needs better definition of left-right political division.

I would consider a far-right election candidate to have most of these beliefs:

• anti Trade union
• anti Communist/left-wing
• pro abortion/birth control
• wants a united Ireland
• more severe prison system and sentencing for criminals
• exploit fully natural resources (oil/mining/fishing)
• stronger police powers
• anti immigration
• disagrees with multiculturalism
• wants a structured society
• respects most existing traditions
• actively promotes/supports the best people in sports/arts
• little tolerance for minorities (e.g. travellers)
• more support for home-grown businesses
• wants a less generous Welfare system
• wants less interference by the EU
• wants to revive Irish Industry e.g. sugar beet
• wants an Ireland where the best/brightest can stay and contribute

Count Dooku

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Allowing an industry to monopolize the economy with no regulation whatsoever is a very right wing policy.

because it was only way to subsidize socialists policies of FF

Hasschu

Enoch Powell that was the name of the guy whose name I could not remember. He was quite articulate and highly intelligent yet his anti immigrant tirades did not gain traction with the electorate at large. His clientele were the workers in the declining textile industries around Manchester who were being over run by immigrants working for starvation wages. Prolonged poverty does lead to unanticipated outcomes.

Pride Fighter

Nolanger wrote: »

Why no far-right candidates?

Fine Gael ran 106, is that not enough?

.0

sarumite wrote: »

I never suggested it would since I was never explicitly asked to explain it.

Though if I had been asked then I would say that a libertarian approach to business (and by business, let me clarify and say macro economics) would support a system whereby the "means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

In what sense are 'business' and 'macro-economics' interchangeable terms?

I'm using the word 'business' in the ordinary sense of "I own my own business".

People who own businesses necessarily own capital (of whatever magnitude) and are therefore capitalists.

If we accept that there is more than one type of capitalism (I think we both agreed upon that), reading your statement I find myself subconsciously replacing "libertarian ideologue" with 'Free market capitalists' and "capitalists and bourgeois politicians" with 'regulated capitalists' (to use crude terms). But that would be going into semantics again. So let me just say that I believe a free market capitalist (who may be considered 'right wing') would allow market forces to determine the fate of the banks....which was the initial point I was trying to make.

Your 'subconscious replacement' of my terms is a mistake, since it causes you to overlook the distinction I'm making between people who actually own capital and people who spend their time philosophising about capitalism and preaching the wonders of laissez-faire.

The former (let's call them capitalists) do not share the ideology of the latter (let's call them libertarians). It is not in the interests of the people who actually own capital to see the utopian political programme of the libertarian philosophers come to fruition, and that is the sole reason why it hasn't, doesn't and won't.

Lawrence1895

Nolanger wrote: »

I would consider a far-right election candidate to have most of these beliefs:

• anti Trade union
• anti Communist/left-wing
• pro abortion/birth control
• wants a united Ireland
• more severe prison system and sentencing for criminals
• exploit fully natural resources (oil/mining/fishing)
• stronger police powers
• anti immigration
• disagrees with multiculturalism
• wants a structured society
• respects most existing traditions
• actively promotes/supports the best people in sports/arts
• little tolerance for minorities (e.g. travellers)
• more support for home-grown businesses
• wants a less generous Welfare system
• wants less interference by the EU
• wants to revive Irish Industry e.g. sugar beet
• wants an Ireland where the best/brightest can stay and contribute

I would like to add 'Anti Democratic' to the list

sarumite

.0 wrote: »

In what sense are 'business' and 'macro-economics' interchangeable terms?

I'm using the word 'business' in the ordinary sense of "I own my own business".

If one looks at a situation of how to do business within an eonomy. I am not suggesting they are interchangeable, I was trying to clarify that when I used the term business I was not referring to a physical entity, but the act of doing business.

Your 'subconscious replacement' of my terms is a mistake, since it causes you to overlook the distinction I'm making between people who actually own capital and people who spend their time philosophising about capitalism and preaching the wonders of laissez-faire.

The former (let's call them capitalists) do not share the ideology of the latter (let's call them libertarians). It is not in the interests of the people who actually own capital to see the utopian political programme of the libertarian philosophers come to fruition, and that is the sole reason why it hasn't, doesn't and won't.

Is it your position that people who own capital cannot or are not libertarian? Or am I missing something? I don't make the same distinction you do as I do not believe both positions are mutually exclusive.

Whether their views come to fruition doesn't negate that they are considered "right wing" (if not very right wing) by many and they would have been happy to see the banks fail if thats what market forces had allowed happen.

sarumite

Lars1916 wrote: »

I would like to add 'Anti Democratic' to the list

How so?

Lawrence1895

sarumite wrote: »

How so?

In a decent working democracy, a party with extreme views never has a real chance, as they need anger and unrest in the population to be successful.

I give you the example Germany: You need at least 5% of votes to be allowed to enter the parliament. Right winged parties, such as the National Democrats (funny, they call themselves 'Democrats' though...) oppose the system because they will never make it into the Bundestag (German equivalent to the Dail).

.0

sarumite wrote: »

If one looks at a situation of how to do business within an eonomy. I am not suggesting they are interchangeable, I was trying to clarify that when I used the term business I was not referring to a physical entity, but the act of doing business.

What you said was:

"A libertarian takes a capitalist approach to business"

which you then rephrased as:

"a libertarian approach to business"

Which means it was like saying "a libertarian takes a libertarian approach to business".

Even without the redundancy, what does that amount to? Doing business as normal (trying to maximise profit) but with a particular philosophical idea about capitalism in your head while you do it? What effect does that have?

Is it your position that people who own capital cannot or are not libertarian? Or am I missing something? I don't make the same distinction you do as I do not believe both positions are mutually exclusive.

No, it's conceivable, and among petty capitalists I'm sure there are libertarians here and there, but not among big capitalists, no. The libertarian political agenda is antithetical to the interests of big capital. Big capital is wed closely to the state, and the state structures itself in accordance with the interests of big capital.

You can of course have libertarian politicians, but as long as they stick closely to libertarian ideology they will remain on the margins, because the role of bourgeois politicians is to act in the best interests of their national capitalism, which is to say, the best interests of the big capitalists of their nation, which, again, are antithetical to the libertarian political agenda.

Whether their views come to fruition doesn't negate that they are considered "right wing" (if not very right wing) by many and they would have been happy to see the banks fail if thats what market forces had allowed happen.

Nobody was disputing that libertarianism is right-wing. It is of course. The point is that there is no ideological unity between the owners of capital and libertarian philosophers. The owners of capital have a state that acts in their best interests, and libertarian philsosophers think it'd be great if that state were dismantled.

dsmythy

Nolanger wrote: »

I would consider a far-right election candidate to have most of these beliefs:

• anti Trade union
• anti Communist/left-wing
  
• pro abortion/birth control
  
• wants a united Ireland
  
• more severe prison system and sentencing for criminals
• exploit fully natural resources (oil/mining/fishing)
  
• stronger police powers
• anti immigration
  
• disagrees with multiculturalism
• wants a structured society
• respects most existing traditions
• actively promotes/supports the best people in sports/arts
• little tolerance for minorities (e.g. travellers)
  
• more support for home-grown businesses
  
• wants a less generous Welfare system
• wants less interference by the EU
• wants to revive Irish Industry e.g. sugar beet
• wants an Ireland where the best/brightest can stay and contribute

Hardly extreme views.

Count Dooku

Lars1916 wrote: »

I would like to add 'Anti Democratic' to the list

Do you mean that USSR and Cuba are best examples of democracy?

sarumite

.0 wrote: »

What you said was:

"A libertarian takes a capitalist approach to business"

which you then rephrased as:

"a libertarian approach to business"

Which means it was like saying "a libertarian takes a libertarian approach to business".

Unfortunately I do not have time right now to address the whole post...although I would like to point out that this portion is wrong. Rather than taking the whole sentence you actually only "rephrased" the first 5 words.

I actually rephrased it to ' a libertarian approach to business (and by business, let me clarify and say macro economics) would support a system whereby the "means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."'

Since the latter half of that sentence is directly taken from the wikipedia entry for 'Capitalism', I would argue its probably more accurate to rephrase it as a libertarian approach supports a capitlaist system or something to that effect. Personally I don't see the redundancy in that.

Lawrence1895

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that USSR and Cuba are best examples of democracy?

Any country with a dictator like government is not democratic at all. And it doesn't matter, if they are Communists or Nazi-sc**, because they both exploit human rights.

.0

sarumite wrote: »

Unfortunately I do not have time right now to address the whole post...although I would like to point out that this portion is wrong. Rather than taking the whole sentence you actually only "rephrased" the first 5 words.

I actually rephrased it to ' a libertarian approach to business (and by business, let me clarify and say macro economics) would support a system whereby the "means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."'

Since the latter half of that sentence is directly taken from the wikipedia entry for 'Capitalism', I would argue its probably more accurate to rephrase it as a libertarian approach supports a capitlaist system or something to that effect. Personally I don't see the redundancy in that.

?

I didn't rephrase anything. I quoted you.

When asked to explain what "a capitalist approach to business" is, you began your explanation with the rephrasing "a libertarian approach to business would..., etc, etc, etc", which means that your initial statement was redundant (like saying "a libertarian takes a libertarian approach to business"). The fact that the explanation itself then followed the rephrasing is entirely beside the point. You rephrased the statement that you were asked to explain.